Sir, – Your editorial of August 6th under the heading “The mantle of 1916” aspires to deal with the “political ownership of the events” of that period in “the national narrative” of today and its relevance to “modern Irish realities”.
Leaving out the personalities involved, the argument whether home rule, promised in 1914, would in time have become 32-county independence or whether “the Rising and the violence of the War of Independence” was necessary is one of the “what-ifs” of history. Your conclusion seems to be that the case is “not proven” on either side and that the argument will “run and run”.
That is all very civilised. But the modern Irish reality is that there is a much more uncivilised national narrative on this topic running elsewhere, especially in various online forums. A flavour of the level of debate there can be judged from the fact that they want the proponents of one side of the argument “cleared out” in “the not too distant future”. The attitude to mainstream media in the debate online is that the civilised debate represented by your editorial is “gibberish”. The people who express these opinions also look forward to the not too distant future when, they hope, papers such as yours will be “facing extinction” – to which they say “good riddance”.
None of these totalitarian ramblings come under the remit of the press ombudsman, but we should be aware that they are part of the national narrative nonetheless. As your editorial says, the argument/debate on the mantle of 1916 will run and run. How extreme this debate will become in the years ahead is unforeseeable at this stage. How much influence it will have on the political ownership of current events only time will tell. But it could be considerable. – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY LEAVY,
Shielmartin Drive,
Sutton,
Dublin 13
Sir, – I haven’t seen much coverage in national media of the inspiring role of anarchists and conscientious objectors, on all sides, during the abominable obscenity called The Great War. If it’s heroes you’re looking for, look no further. Yours, etc,
GABRIEL ROSENSTOCK,
Gleann na gCaorach,
Co Átha Cliath
Sir, – I have great respect for Éamon Ó Cuív and the tradition that he represents (Opinion & Analysis, August 6th). However, his repeated insinuation that the movement for a united Europe is not the world’s most edifying peace process is disappointing. Is Ireland to stand back in the face of violations of human rights, disease and poverty in the Third World and in emerging powers such as China, or are we to have the courage of our convictions and unite with our European partners to be a powerful force for good – and for peace – in the world? It is our moral duty to engage in the world, and not to stand idly by. – Yours, etc,
EOGHAN PEAVOY,
Millmount Avenue,
Drumcondra,
Dublin 9
Sir, – Your editorial of August 6th misses the opportunity to lay claim to what should be at the centre of all our centenary remembrances over the next several years. Outside of very formal occasions and sporting events we as a nation have very little pride in our flag. This is primarily due to it having been hijacked by men of violence in Northern Ireland in 1968/69 and thereafter. As a nation, we should use the next number of years to take it back permanently from them. Your average reader, myself included, should be able to promote our flag without people thinking he or she has Provo leanings. The men of violence past and present will not give it up voluntarily; we need to take it back. Yours, etc,
HENRY COUNIHAN,
Taney Crescent,
Dublin 14